Talk:Historic places in Framingham, Massachusetts

Move
I undid the move because the editor could not be bothered to:
 * 1) Inquire if any one else felt the move was appropriate;
 * 2) Did not check to see what links to it and change the links as needed;
 * 3) The list is not only of items that are on the National Register;
 * 4) It was not redundant.

--- Jeremy (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger
About some apparent edit warring, hey, i don't get what is the issue here. I see the article title is broader than just the NRHP listings in Framingham. And the redirect to an NRHP list actually takes the reader to a broader list of NRHPs, National Register of Historic Places listings in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. It seems fine to me for there to be a separate list-article about just the historic sites in Framingham. It would help if the article were developed a bit more to cover more, and if it would put some non-NRHP stuff up at the top so it would not look like it is duplicative. doncram (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't any edit warring, I just objected to Nyttend's unilateral change of the article to a redirect. I would prefer he had discussed this before he did this.

I just added a Merge proposal tag to the top of the article. Shouldn't this material just be included as a section in the Framingham, Massachusetts article? Only if there is more material than is suitable for the city article, should this be split out. Note, I do consider this material separate from the NRHP list-article about Middlesex county, which will continue to list these sites anyhow. However, mention of the NRHP and other historic sites can be in the city article, too. I'll watch here for discussion. doncram (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How about renaming to Historic sites in Framingham, Massachusetts or Historic sites of Framingham, Massachusetts? Also, does the local historical society have any register of local sites, perhaps in their webpages? I haven't really browsed their pages. Any sites they say are historic should be added. Then, the NRHP vs. non-NRHP sections should be merged together, just give one list of historic sites (although NRHP designation can/should be noted where relevant). doncram (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, why do you call it unilateral? At least three different editors have redirected it, and you're the only one that has sought to keep the article a separate list.  No objections to having a sourced list of sites on the town article, or if there's a specific list of sites from the historical society, having it here; however, until/unless we get that, this really shouldn't remain.  Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with him.


 * About those three different redirects comment- one of those redirects was to List of Registered Historic Places in Framingham, Massachusetts which was undone because - as you have noted - not all places are on the list of registered historic places; the second was due to a name change of the article to Historic places in Framingham, Massachusetts from Historic places in Framingham, Ma in order to confirm with WP naming standards; and the third was you - you are the only one who eliminated the content and that makes your changes unilateral. Additionally, your commentary about three separate redirects is a little disingenuous, because of the reasons I noted.


 * Additionally, you claiming there is no standard for inclusion is also problematic. What make something historical - well the dictionary states it is belonging to the past; of what is important or famous in the past. The examples in the third section state what make them historical. References for those articles that are wikilinked can be found on those articles' pages and we will provide valid references for the others as we expand the article.


 * Your whole movement to kill the Framingham, Massachusetts sub-articles has been a little aggressive in your assertions, and they seem to lack an assumption of good faith on the part of the contributors who seek to ensure the articles continued existence by improving the content and providing valid sources. I know when I have reason to believe an article is not worthy for inclusion, I note it on the talk page and state why I believe it should be deleted. I also not when I intend to make an AfD so others can seek to improve the article and prove me wrong. You should look into this. --Jeremy (blah blah) 07:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please observe this edit and this edit. Anyway, lists are required to have clear standards for inclusion — we need to have reliable sources stating that these places are more important etc. to the past than others, or we could end up listing every place in the town.  Furthermore, there's no need to leave a note on the talk page: AFD isn't cleanup, so I only nominate articles for deletion that I believe deserve deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Split: The Framingham article in 53,000k + (and has no lead, which it very much needs). This makes it considerably larger than the articles on the nations of Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, or Burkina Faso.  Guidelines at Splitting would suggest that this article (as it is now, unmerged) should be examined for a way to split.  It certainly does not need two large lists merged into it.  T L Miles (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)